05 October 2014

Measure S – The Numbers Please! (updated 8oct14)

George Rebane

Pro-S supporters and community leaders have been denying Nevada County voters the relevant data with which to decide on how to vote for the Measure S medical marijuana (MMJ) initiative. They have been unwilling to count the number of legitimate MMJ users in the county. Not only that, they maintain that such data is impossible to get, none of the voters’ business, and irrelevant to making a reasoned decision on how to vote on the issue in November.

Leading pro-S advocate Ms Patricia Smith, president of the local Americans for Safe Access chapter, has been asked by RR and other media (KNCO) people about the size of the county’s medical marijuana consuming population. Her estimates have ranged into the multiple tens of thousands in a county in which less than 100,000 people live. This commentator has argued that such numbers are a bamboozle on the voters and nowhere close to reality.

The data now issuing from Colorado’s experience with legalizing recreational marijuana (RMJ) use is very revealing and applicable to the situation in Nevada County. The just out November 2014 issue of Reason magazine contains a long and informative article detailing what has been happening with MMJ and RMJ in Colorado since voters legalized RMJ sales and consumption.

An interesting result was that consumption of MMJ did not plummet as expected after the legalization of RMJ, but actually increased due to cost factors. But that is not the point I want to make in this post. Colorado has no trouble counting and reporting its MMJ users. This May the total came to 115,210 as reported by Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado has a population of about 5,250,000. There is no reason to think that Colorado’s lax MJ laws minimize the number of its MMJ users (both legitimate and frauds), so the ratio of Colorado’s users to its population – 0.022 – should apply to Nevada County’s 100,000 residents. This puts our county’s MMJ users into the vicinity of approximately 2,200 patients, not the tens of thousands claimed by pro-S promoters led by Ms Smith.

And isn’t it odd that an entire state can easily track its legal MMJ users, but our county with a handful of prescribing physicians cannot? This is a repeated call for the numbers relevant to our county's consumption of medical marijuana.

The bottom line here is that there is no epidemic of MMJ users in the county, and most certainly there is no shortage of supply for the arguably small number of the county’s MMJ patients as claimed by Measure S supporters. If my estimate is materially in error, it is up to the pro-S people to present evidence that supports that contention.

[6oct14 update] The comment stream to the above post was immediate, emotional, and irrational, yet nevertheless expected, valuable, and worthy of examination on its own merits.

First, readers who recall some of their training in science will recognize the line of reasoning that obtained the 2,200 estimate is based on what we in science call the Copernican Argument (see also the Copernican place, Copernican moment, Copernican part, …). Without rehashing the history, the Copernican Argument is a powerful starting point for estimations and explanations of existential phenomena about which few specifics are known. In the case of MMJ usage, the CArg is that Nevada County’s MMJ experience does not fall far from the aggregate of such MMJ experiences in American jurisdictions from which the Colorado experience is but a more fully known sample. And therefore, absent other data, the Colorado experience can in many ways serve as a proxy to estimating some of the same kinds of parameters that hold in our neck of the woods. Most certainly the ratio of MMJ users within a population is the most straightforward parameter that can be ‘transferred’ to estimate the approximate size of Nevada County’s similar population.

Of course, to those ignorant of such things, this all seems like mumbo jumbo or some kind of black magic. Be that as it may.

The second aspect of the comments that is worthy of note again illustrates the deep and (I maintain) irreconcilable chasm that exists between the liberal mind and other modes of thought and reasoning. Here we see a commenter, who we may assume typifies a ‘liberal thinker’, answer the legitimate demand for minimal data to support the adoption of Measure S by counter demanding a laundry list of MMJ related data (some ludicrous) from the opponents of S as some kind of argumentative pro quid quo. Not only that, but such data must be forthcoming before the pro-S faction even recognizes the need for knowing the approximate magnitude of the ‘MMJ problem’ the new Measure S is to alleviate.

The long known and reasonable sequence of such arguments has always been that when some party/parties propose a change to any established order/process/construction, then it is incumbent on them to provide the people of the established order with substantive arguments as to why their new way is better and should replace the old. But the modern liberal mind no longer recognizes such a protocol (another devastating result of Great Society’s educational system?), and seeks to change things simply on the basis of their say so, advancing the empty proposition that their new proposal will in some unknown way make things better, more equitable, more just, or more something. Examples of the fruits of such thinking over the last forty years abound in our land, and the insanity grows daily. Here we see just a small part of the wave of unreason washing over America.

[7oct14 update] Regular readers will be happy to know that RR got its moment in the sun about our coverage and voluminous debate over the Measure S initiative. We are prominently featured in the 7oct14 Union’s lead article on page one (here). For readers new to RR wishing to read the entire series on Measure S, I have collected the permalinks below –

[8oct14 update] The comments of pro-S worthies Messrs BradC and APatriot, starting with my 551pm comment and jumping to BradC’s 1050am, open a new front in the Measure S debate regarding the strong claim by pro-S that the purpose of S reaches significantly beyond the adequate supply and access of MMJ to ONLY Nevada County’s legitimate MMJ patients. It turns out that Measure S, through its lax provisions for MMJ grows and enforcemet, is also intended to launch a resurgent MMJ export business to the remainder of the state as allowed by existing state law.

Here I want to respond to the somewhat desperate and off-the-point responses from Ms Patricia Smith (322pm) and Mr APatriot (404pm). The quoted material is in their words, starting with Ms Smith –

“…you complain over numbers that are not substantiated and then you have the audacity to declare unilaterally that NC grows enough medicine to supply all the patients in California.”

My declaration was to make a point about the enormous amount of MJ grown in NC so that claims of the lack of MMJ supply in the county could be put in perspective. I did admit to being off the mark on the total amount, but that was not the point important to voters. I never complained about “unsubstantiated” numbers, just of their total absence and the humorous attempt to throw the CDC under the bus for Ms Smith’s obviously bad arithmetic or gross ignorance of the county’s population.

“The first thing our elected officials say when we bring up lack of access is ‘go to a dispensary in Sacramento.’ ”

If going to Sacramento is a hardship for MMJ users, then Measure S would have provided a service in specifying that such dispensaries can be opened up in Nevada County. Apparently it is not that big of a problem.

“What you refuse to acknowledge is that most of the marijuana being grown in NC is NOT medicine.”

Pattie, who taught you how to read??? I have proclaimed exactly the opposite in this debate cycle and for many years before that. Your campaign would do better if you gave your opposition credit for more brains. EVERYONE knows that Nevada County’s RMJ crop swamps its legal MMJ crop – please, get a grip. And no one in the anti-S camp wants legitimate MMJ users denied their product. Unfortunately, S does not provide for the local manufacture and convenient dispensing of all the variants of MMJ you describe. However, 2349 can be amended to do just that if you make a believable case for it (and yes, that will require numbers).

“One cannot ignore the number of patients that visit our local doctors who write MMJ recommendations. This would indicate a substantially higher number of active patients than you want to admit. Again, it is impossible to get a factually accurate number for many reasons, but mostly because there is no central registration collecting agency to verify these numbers. I'll leave the guessing games to you.”

A properly written S would have prescribed a “central registration agency” (the county’s health department) for the collection of such data from the county’s prescribing physicians. The data is available and easily collected, as I have pointed out numerous times. And the “guessing games” appear as such to you only because of your inexperience in the procedures used for estimation in all fields of science. Were you to continue in this enterprise of advocating public policy changes, I’d recommend getting familiar with them.

We continue with the revealing offerings of Mr APatriot’s 404pm –

“No George that is your conjecture, opinion and hallucination. …”

Have no idea what the man’s referent is.

“Only the No on S posse seems to be afraid of facts. You constantly ignore the reasons S is an improvement. You wanted reasons, I gave you sound agricultural practices, no response.”

No one has any idea of what facts the anti-S people are afraid of since almost no facts have been presented by the pro-S promoters. A dissertation about “agricultural practices” deserves no response since under 2349 the number of visibly healthy MJ grows in the county is legion. If S would call for zoning set asides for the commercial growing of MMJ, then we would be getting somewhere. But what S promotes is simply the ability for surreptitious growing of RMJ under the MMJ mantle. And, of course, you’re right that I do have only a layman’s knowledge of growing MJ picked up from various presentations on the topic. But that again is neither the point of S vs 2349, nor the salient factor to consider in casting your vote because it seems that everyone has cracked the code on growing MJ.

“You also seem to think the title Dr. makes you a medical expert, from the manner and content of your dosage claims.”

“How about you tell US how many times the B of S has met to adjust, revise and improve what exists. They haven't, they lied, and they continue to fall short.”

Had you paid attention, then you would know that I already did. 2349 is readily amendable, and has seen a number of amendments by the BoS (you can download them here). Measure S is not amendable, but requires another election in which voters will be presented another poured-in-concrete initiative to grieve over. The state’s voters passed such an initiative in Prop 215. And what it wound up doing was creating a deluge of (still ongoing) lawsuits across the state’s jurisdictions that in desperation sought to define what the proposition left unsaid or on which it was silent. Now the pro-S crowd wants to revisit that same plague on the citizens of Nevada County with a loosey-goosey replacement of a working and amendable county ordinance that defines the growing and use of MMJ, while it balances the nuisance concerns of the growers’ neighbors.

Comments

Hey Don, you know what? I didn't see an FPPC# on the Sheriff's press release on Sheriff Department letterhead regarding the No on S rally either. I didn't see it on the Rood Center door when it happened. How much was the use of those facilities and County website worth? Could be the public has a right to know. I also don't see it on the Nevada County Republican Women Federated website and didn't note it on the No on S "Giant tree" poster pictured in The Union either. hmmmmmmmm. Hey no one is special, if there was an oversight, the appropriate filings will be made and any fines paid. FPPC probably need to look into ASPOA's political actions too, since KVMR is linking you to them for the debate tomorrow. Didn't they disavow themselves of connection to your political statements? Tax exempt status would be a terrible thing for them to lose. "Neighbors Who Care" what a hoot. I didn't see where the elections office referenced Yes on S supporters. If they did, how do you explain how they know which are which? Curiouser and curiouser.

We also liked the format and tenor of the KVMR debate today. Pattie and Bon both did well, although I do admit that there were times I wished I could have been in Don's shoes, or at least a fly whispering in his ear. But then, it's always easier to come up with arguments when you're not on the hot seat. Thanks to both, and to Pascal, and even Paul for not screwing up the announcer job ;-)

Patti, your comment above is a very important point. If Nevada County won't let the "big box" store mentality into our community, why would we want commercial growers. With Measure S in place we at least have a toe-hold with regulating the larger commercial grows. And they would be required to follow our sensible regulations.

And Don - While you are investigating source of funds? Who are you investigating for? Why do you care? There aren't any neighborhood affiliations that really want your opinion, so who are you speaking for, and why would anyone even believe you?

After the expert review of the recent ASA financial filing I will doing a major supplemental to the FPPC complaint. In fact the 460 has been characterized at not meeting the minimum statutory requirements and will likely be rejected by the elections or at least be sent back for major revisions. The shell game between grass roots solutions, the asa and patties group citizens for fair laws is radially apparent. Failure to the fully meet the required transparency is a serious issue. Deliberately failing to report the very large funds is obviously keeping the truth hidden from the voters right at the height of voting. That coupled with the donor committees not having their papers filed on the source of the funds they donated to the fair laws committee is another major issue. $20,000 in cash donations where they are masking the source of the cash is wrong in every sense of the word.

Yet nothing to say on the debate huh, Don, You couldn't even recall the name of your old little cluster of 3 or 4 that had so much input on the farce that is 2349. I do, it was Nevada County Against Residential Cannabis Cultivation (apparently disbanded) and you got exactly what "they" wanted. No outdoor grows in residential areas - less than 2 acres, Same in both 2349 and S. Complain all you want, you're still talking about pretty standard clerical forms that are easily revised if they are not up to snuff, and if your petty charges stand up, the appropriate penalties will be applied. Lucky you aren't too late on your alleged administrative oversight. The voters weren't so lucky with the ballot question. You should hope the County and the No on S posse can stand up to the same nit-picking and scrutiny. They'll likely get it. Still waiting to your responses to my posts above and that ASPOA poll data.

FYI - 'No on S' signs are disappearing almost as fast as they are being put up. Lowell Robinson's personally funded ($250) sign was taken from his property. This is another longstanding asymmetrical phenomenon of polarized American politics.

How many of you remember my good friend in Alta Sierra - Don Qurnell, who passed in the last 2 years from Cancer?

I used to consider Don a father figure after my dad passed from Colon Cancer @9 years ago. Don and I did not see eye-to-eye on everything, but he was a great friend and both having engineering in our blood-stream we were able to work on numerous projects together successfully.

Now we did have our disagreements as I did not like listening to Rush every morning, and he thought that the Beatles, in their early years, looked like girls..... LOL!!!

About 2 years before he died, Don informed me that he had Cancer, and he attributed it to the smoking that he did in his early days. Don asked me to help him install a grow space under his home, next to his shop, that he could start growing some medicine as he said that he had numerous projects that he wanted to complete before he died, and he said that it was metastasizing and had already spread throughout his body, so he knew there was very little that could be done to solve this problem at this point...

I agreed and we spent @1 week installing a very nice space, with the very best equipment, and Don started producing what he needed.

I found him to be in much better condition after he started using his material, he was alert, smart and as angry with President Obama, and the Federal Government as ever; which made me very happy. He even installed a picture of three chimps (Dad, Mom and the Baby, with Obama's picture glued in place), and he used to say to me almost every time I came by, so how's the President doing? Which made me shake my head, but him laugh!

Don grew for @2 1/2 years before his death, and when I look back I feel it was a honor to do something like that for a man who made such a great impression on me, and I miss him, like my late father almost everyday as he made my life better, not only by his "sense of humor", but also by his being able to step in as a father figure to me as there were times when things we tough in my life, and I always knew that Don would be there to advise me how to get through them.

I miss his friendship and guidance everyday, as he was my friend, and in a way, my father......

Too late lil ol' bradly, everyone knows about the fake fador. As I posted previously the yes on S 460's were a joke. The elections office however did not find them too funny. They issued a series of letters to the Yes on S committee (pattie smith), grass roots solutions (pattie smtih) and asanc also pattie smith. The issues include accepting large cash donations from what were claimed to be small committees that are not official committees. No financial fillings from the so called small committees nor establishing filings with the state. After talking to the elections office this looks like money laundering. $20,000.00 in cash all fllowing through one persons hands (pattie smith) to the yes on s committee (pattie smith). This is clearly an effort to hide the true source of the funds from the voters in the most cynical try at buying an election in County history. To quote from one of the County letters dated 10/14/14 "Upon review of your form 460 it has come to our attention that you need to file multiple form 497's" "Please file your late statements immediately." This refers to the requirement that large donations be reported within 24 hours of receipt of funds. There look to be 6 different ones required. Interestingly most of them are from entities controlled by pattie smith. These letters are only the counties response. The FPPC will be taking their own actions based on my original filing and my supplement that outlines the issues the County has also come to recognize as violations. We are dealing with a bunch of law breakers, the ASA's VP and now the Prez of ASA NC, their minions who have stolen over 700 signs including Mr Robinsons big sign off his property. Profits not patients folks, its all about the money!

Don if you ever got your facts straight, you might make sense on occasion. We filed in April to get our Committee number. We did not have any activity until July when we started reporting. You just love to allege malfeasance where there is none. Could this be a tactic to divert attention from the serious campaign violations committed by the County?

All of our handout have the proper ID on them, but some splinter groups have put out info that did not come from us, was not endorsed by us, and therefore does not contain our committee number.

OH MY Pattie, You ( citizens for fair laws) filed papers in April and then on May 28th. Then nothing till the latest smoke screen. Right now you can whine at me. It is you who have the FPPC and NEVADA COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE LETTERS on your ass. Pattie always says 'I am a victim, 'I only heard about the sample ballot language last Thursday' and swore to it. OH SHIT, I sat for a day and led a demonstration at the Board Of Supervisors on live TV in April! Google Brad Pecimer-Glasse, That's the Americans for Save Access President and Vice President. All the money runs through Patties hands. Could it be illegal money that is not claimed on any tax forms? Hey Paul E , where can I find the debate you were so kind to facilitate? I want to link to it. OOOOHH, Pattie that last line is self-incrementing! Check your VP's activities. We have proved otherwise.

Apparently you have a problem with accurately recounting what people say. I quote the article below. I think we'll all have to wait to see what gets filed and if any further investigation is warranted. One might also note that the requirements for many of these forms were recently expanded from only being required for contributions made a few weeks prior to an election to the period 90 days prior. Nowhere in the article does it mention that these funds were "new and suddenly appeared" nor is there any indication that it is out of county. All of this has nothing to do with the merits of Measure S and serves only to distract from the issue, a tactic for those that are afraid of the truth. Measure S is about Medical Cannabis Cultivation by and for legitimate patients. Don Bessee's pathetic blather isn't worth commenting on. No class.

From The Union:

“I did my best to fill them out correctly, but I may have made some mistakes,” Smith said Tuesday. “I understand that it is easy to fill out the forms incorrectly and the Nevada County Democratic Committee received a $500 fine for not filing something in a timely manner.”

Smith added that the issues raised “seem rather minor, compared to the mishandling of the election by paid officials,” apparently referring to the Measure S ballot label that Nevada County Superior Court Judge Sean Dowling has ruled was not impartial as required by law. “Are they planning on fining themselves?”

APatriot 1205pm - And apparently you didn't read my 1033am accurately. Nowhere did I quote the Union as reporting the "suddenly appeared" $20K. I did that all by myself, because this is the first we have heard of these contributions being reported. Nor did I cite that their source was out of the county; I questioned whether they were since I haven't heard of any in-county organizations working to raise those kinds of monies in favor of MMJ. You see, I get to do that, and people who read know how to interpret those observations.

And I also get to interpret that Pattie's admitted and Union-reported "mistakes" were due to her being confused - a condition apparently shared by the NC Democratic Committee - rather than any intended wrongdoing or carelessness. Now, you got all that?

This appears to be much ado about nothing (as usual). There was a gap between filing for a committee number in April and when we started spending money on the campaign in July because there was nothing to report. It appears I did error by indicating ASA-NC and GrassRoots solutions were "small contributor committees" when in fact they should have been listed as "other". Small contributor committees only apply to contributions made to support a candidate not a measure.

If you want to get picky, the radio ads running on KNCO by the Nevada County REPUBLICAN Women's Federated left out the word Republican. Are they afraid of the fallout from being associated with the opposition to Measure S?

It appears this is all smoke and mirrors to change the topic of conversation from the real transgressions committed by the County against our ballot measure. Good try.

As someone else said here from the pro "S" side "WWWhhaaaaa!!!" You had your day in court and were shown the door. "transgressions committed by the County ..." is the red haring here. (and it isn't Fish)
And screwing up important documents is no excuse, nor is failing to report "donations".

The "pro" gang needs to put their political signs on their OWN property. Not on someone else's land. Just who was the smart guy that placed one on the property of a business that's a drug free zone? Thanks for the free sign that we can alter and morph into an "anti" "S" sign. I will wait for the bitch about it. It's ours now.

Yep, got it. you cant comprehend a lick. I never said you said the Union said that. I was pointing out EXACTLY what you said, that its your conjecture or "interpretation" regardless of twist, and yes, you get to do that.

APatriot 216pm - In the universe in which I live, "Nowhere in the article does it mention that these funds were "new and suddenly appeared" nor is there any indication that it is out of county." gives the direct inference that I misquoted or extracted something from erroneously from the Union article (the only cited reference in the comment). Being able to exercise such inferential logic is one of the things that allowed us to put a man on the moon, process MRI images, and learn from massive databases (among other things). It's probably best to put this thread down now.

A check from Donald Trump "suddenly appeared" in McClintock's treasure chest.
Perhaps George Soros supports Measure S. Thanks to the Supreme's Citizen's United decision, it doesn't matter who gave the money. Any group of folks can become a PAC and they don't have to disclose personal info.
Is $20k a lot of money? How much do election signs, pamphlets, postage, etc. cost (don't forget, someone has been collecting these expensive election signs in the dark of night? By the way, I hope whomever has these signs does have them under their bed or spend too much time near them - we don't know what the effects might be regarding long term exposure to all that "Yes on S" energy ).
I guess all the issues with the Measure S ordinance have been settled since we are now being treated to a display of nitpicking over how well some election forms have been completed. However, the FPPC has been alerted, so I think the bookkeeping issues will be sorted out.

Don, you are so off base- again! We didn't have any activity between April (when we filed for our committee number) and July when our campaign took off. We have filed all of our forms with the local elections office.

If you are so worried about where our money comes from, let me set you straight. ASA host seminars, films, dances, etc. to raise money. We have spent most of it on legal fees in the past, now we are donating to Citizens for Fair Laws. All perfectly legal. You love to make unfounded accusations to change the topic of discussion from the questionable (and possibly illegal activities) perpetrated by elected officials.

Your vicious attacks are getting boring. If you have something intelligent to add to the conversation, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, keep on talking and let everyone see your lack of character.